Hosting a dialogue among parents, educators and community members focused on improving our schools and providing a quality, equitable education for each of our nearly 100,000 students.
~ "ipsa scientia potestas est" ~ "Knowledge itself is power"

Pages

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Since 2003-2004 – for 7 years! – DCSS has NOT made AYP. In 2003-2004, 18 of 132 DCSS schools (14%) did NOT make AYP. Fast forward to 2009-2010. Fifty (50) of 133 DCSS schools (37.6%) did NOT meet AYP!

That’s a 23.6% increase in FAILING to meet basic requirements!

Since the Class of 2010 entered middle school – and earlier – DCSS students with learning needs have NOT gotten the help they needed from the Office of School "Improvement." These students have graduated further behind than when they started. Millions of dollars have been spent on friends-and-family and useless "programs" without ever addressing the real problem, straightforwardly and effectively.

So, that naturally raises the question: Why do the folks charged with school improvement still have jobs?

If you or I had failed so spectacularly at our jobs we would have been fired. The people in school improvement got raises!

That’s right. Raises.

According to Open.Georgia.com, between 2008 and 2010 (the only documentation publicly available), Employees in school improvement enjoyed an average raise of 7.5%.

Umm … Teachers? How much of a raise did you receive during those years?

Did these employees lose DCSS’s retirement contributions during that time period? How many days were they furloughed during that time period?

Five (5) of the fewer than 30 employees in the "Office of School Improvement" on the payroll in 2010 received more than $100,000 per year. Another 15 "improvement" employees received from more than $50,000 all the way up to just under $95,000. This includes a data entry clerk paid $50,532, an administrative assistant (1 of 5 administrative assistants in a department of fewer than 30 people) paid $51,561 and two accounting associates each paid more than $52,000. Most of it paid with federal Title 1 funds – It looks like federal funds have become a playground full of money trees!

To view the presentation and see the Facility Needs Assessments for each school, click here. Scroll down to Updates and look under Friday, May 27th.

Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the SPLOST IV draft project list. The survey closes this Wednesday, June 1st at 11:59 p.m. To take the survey, click here.

The DeKalb Board of Education will continue the discussion about the 2020 Vision and SPLOST IV at a Committee of the Whole meeting this Wednesday, June 1st at 9:30 a.m. at the Administrative and Instructional Complex, 1701 Mountain Industrial Blvd., Stone Mountain, GA. The meeting is open to the public.

The DeKalb Board of Education will hold another Committee of the Whole meeting this Friday, June 3rd at 9:30 a.m. to continue the discussion about the 2020 Vision and SPLOST IV and to receive a copy of the final draft of the Facility Master Plan. It will also be held at the Administrative and Instructional Complex, 1701 Mountain Industrial Blvd., Stone Mountain, GA. The meeting is open to the public.

The Board of Education plans to vote on the SPLOST IV referendum and the Ten Year Facility Master Plan at their monthly Board meeting on Monday, June 6th at 6 p.m.

Please take time to familiarize yourself with the proposals and provide any feedback you have this week.

To view the plans as well as the video of Friday's meeting, click here.

To read an interesting blog post on the subject click here to visit Dunwoody Talk Blog.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Folks, it is time to stop giving DCSS leaders and the BOE the benefit of the doubt.

They are flat-out “raiding the cookie jar” – taking what they can from us and from our children.

Their chutzpah is amazing! This is not happening by accident – and they clearly feel no shame.

DeKalb is a majority Black county. DCSS is a majority Black school system run by majority Black administrators and a majority Black BOE. This is a Black-on-Black outrage, if not an outright crime. Disadvantaged children in DeKalb County, most of whom are Black, have no chance. As long as DCSS leaders, the BOE and their friends-and-family “get theirs” they simply do not care what happens to the children.

I have spent nights and weekends pouring over DCSS employee payroll information from 2008, 2009 and 2010. While the state is to be commended for putting this information online, a lot of work was required to get it to a point where the data can be sorted and analyzed:

An online document with nearly 17,000 rows had to be downloaded to a CSV document, then converted to an Excel spreadsheet.

All of the dollar figures had to be converted from CSV fields that read-as-text to Excel fields that read-as-currency using a separate text editor. Not as easy as it sounds!

Significant, multiple data entry errors originating in the online information had to be corrected in order to properly sort and analyze the data.

This is an unfinished project. But, I want to share with you what I know so far, based on the 2010 payroll as published on Open.Georgia.gov. I have not had time to go to this level of detail for 2008 and 2009.

Mission Critical

Administrators, Teachers and Other Professionals – $453,840,260

9,227 school-based professionals* who have direct contact with students.

Support Staff – $12,912,876

334 school-based Support Staff **(who keep the schools running) for the 9,227 professionals (above) and DCSS’ 96,000+ students. These support staff are paid as secretaries/clerks when in reality many are trained professionals in their fields and should be paid as such.

*(This does not include vocational/nursing assistant/health tech instructors and administrators or psycho-ed personnel.)** (This does not include custodial staff because it was impossible to determine how many were school-based.)

Betty Guthrie ($74,100), secretary and gatekeeper to HR Czar Jamie Wilson ($166,008) who refuses to publish his business number.

Cointa Moody, now indicted on RICO charges, who made $79,546 as Pat Pope’s secretary – that was more than the Superintendent’s secretary! This begs the question – which arises again and again and again – what did Pat Pope and possibly others have on Crawford Lewis?

Other Central Office Secretaries/Clerks

6 making more than $71,000+ (including Frankie Freeman)

2 making more than $60,000

17 making more than $50,000

6 making nearly $49,000

Miscellaneous Activities $4,414,673

145 people. Doing what?

Interesting, familiar names on this list. Are they related to anyone we know? It’s hard to tell because DCSS and the BOE will not reveal the names of family members on the payroll.

Of the 145 here, nearly 33% received more than $50,000 from DCSS in 2010; 41% received “salary-sized” payments.

Five received more than $100,000, including Ralph Simpson who topped the list at $122,928!

Outsource to Gain Performance and Savings:

Finance – $2,133,111

27 Business Services personnel, including 7 auditors who aren’t, really.

Heading up this department is Marcus Turk ($166,008), the guy who told Crawford Lewis “no” to using his DCSS P-card (credit card) illegally and inappropriately – and then Turk approved paying the bills, anyhow.

Turk had to know about Lewis’ illegal activities that eventually earned him a RICO indictment.

No Open Checkbook as long as Turk handles the money.

Human Resources – $2,483,990

35 HR personnel.

This includes DCSS retiree Robert Tucker ($57,168) who does Ronald Ramsey’s ($114,057) “job” three months (January, February, March) of each year while Ramsey busies himself with commendations, recognitions, condolences and congratulations (32 in 2011) in the legislature as a state senator ($16,007). Of the 16 mostly forgettable bills Ramsey co-sponsored in 2011, only one made it to the Governor for his signature.

Apparently, Tucker is one of many DCSS retirees who retire and are brought right back as “contractors” making a full-time salary in addition to being eligible to collect a pension from TRS.

Security and School Safety – $9,812,575
213 Security Personnel.

This massive group of school-based security officers, along with administrative detectives, and their two overpaid directors ($214,752) have not been able to prevent thefts – most of which appear to be “inside” jobs. Nor have they recovered hundreds of stolen laptops.

What is the dollar value of all the theft from DCSS in 2010 and so far in 2011?

Why have none of the thieves been brought to justice? At least one was caught red-handed.

This cost does NOT include the fuel and maintenance costs for the cars these folks are given to drive to and from work.

Technology Services – $13,337,208

246 Technology Services personnel.

These are the people who are unable to bring DCSS into the 21st Century of technology and who already outsource even the basics.

Why isn’t DCSS using the sophisticated, free, open source Open Office software? It’s FREE, completely compatible with Microsoft Office, comes without the bloatware that must be removed from Office and works better in many ways.

Food Service – $18,090,861

1009 Food Service personnel.

There are 8 – count ‘em – 8! – food service administrators; 4 make more than $70,000 including Joyce Wimberly who makes $110,187.

Do your kids eat the food – or is there a lot of waste? Outsource for tasty, nutritious food your kids will eat – for lower cost and less waste.

Transportation – $31,926,958

1198 Transportation personnel.

Would an expense this size be necessary with smaller neighborhood schools?

DCSS also has other options under AYP instead of transferring students across the county and providing bus transportation for that crisscrossing.

The budget for magnet transportation (no longer legally required) was saved by the BOE -- instead of saving parapros at neighborhood schools.

Transportation to Fernbank’s Scientific Tools & Techniques science program for 160 freshman delivered from their homes to Fernbank and then from Fernbank to their home schools costs a fortune.

NOT included in the above costs are the constantly rising costs for fuel and maintenance.

Does DCSS also pay mileage costs or MARTA costs for transferring students who select that as their transportation option? How much additional does that cost?

NOTE: The payroll costs shown above do NOT include the cost of benefits that DCSS also must pay.

Did You Know:

Did you know that DCSS 2010 revenues were approximately 3% more than expenditures for teachers and paraprofessionals? That is actually a lot of money! Did you know that DCSS spent only 40.8% of its funding for teachers and paraprofessionals? Teachers and paraprofessionals are Mission Critical!
DCSS has a staggering number of substitute teachers – 1,450! – with a total payroll of $9,161,313!
We could dismiss at least half of the Central Office clerical staff, never miss them, and gain nearly $6.5 million for education. (In the business world, there are very few secretaries anymore. With the advent of computers, most managers have easily been able to type their own communications and answer their own mail for years now. Most can also answer their own phones and check voice mail.)
We could dismiss all who are paid for “Miscellaneous Activities,” never miss them and whatever it is they do, and gain nearly $4.5 million for education.
We could dismiss ALL of Crawford Lewis’ inner circle, never miss them and gain more than $3.6 million for education.
What if we could outsource Finance, Human Resources, Security, Technology Services, Food Service and Transportation (greatly scaled down) for 80% - 90% of the 2010 personnel cost for these areas? We would have an additional $7.7 million – $15.5 million to spend on educating our children well. DCSS could give disadvantaged children the education they deserve to have a decent life. DCSS could give ALL DeKalb children the education they deserve to become productive and contributing citizens.
That’s an annual windfall of $22.3 million – $30.1 million!

And, folks, ALL of these savings are just from right-sizing payroll!

Without the Open Checkbook we have repeatedly called for, we cannot even begin to identify the millions more dollars in legal costs and other questionable payments buried deep within the budget. Yet.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

During the legislative session, the Center for an Educated Georgia is one source that brings us the latest in political news and bills to watch. Below is their latest update.

Governor Signing Period Complete

After the legislative session ends, the governor has forty days to sign or veto legislation passed by the General Assembly. Any bill that the governor does not sign or veto becomes law after day forty.

Today's Capitol Update will provide a recap of important education legislation signed by the Governor. This will be the final update for the year, unless the General Assembly takes up education issues during the special session for redistricting that is scheduled to take place in August.

Tax Credit Scholarship Bill Signed

On May 11th, Governor Deal signed HB 325, legislation that will improve and expand the Georgia Tax Credit Scholarship program. Provisions in the bill include increasing the $50 million state-wide cap based on the consumer price index, clarifying eligibility requirements, and improving efficiency, accountability, and transparency of the program.

Created by the passage and signing of HB 192, the Education Finance Study Commission will evaluate the method of funding for Georgia's school systems. The commission will focus on the Quality Basic Education Formula (QBE), the 25 year old method of calculating the funding needed for Georgia school systems.

The 20-member commission consists of ten members appointed by Governor Deal, four senators appointed by Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, four representatives named by House Speaker David Ralston, State Superintendent John Barge and Chief Operating Officer of the Georgia Department of Education Scott Austenson. The commission will meet quarterly as required by the legislation, and must have the final recommendations completed by Sept. 30, 2012.

Last week the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the Charter Schools Commission, finding that the Commission does not have the authority to approve charter schools. Now, the fate of 16 schools and approximately 15,000 students is unclear since the Commission that authorized them has been ruled illegal.

To remain open, schools must be approved by an alternative method - likely the State Board of Education or the local school board, though many of the local boards already rejected charters for these schools.

A special Senate subcommittee meeting has been called for next Friday, June 3 so that state leaders can discuss the problem. Click here to read an analysis of the ruling by Georgia Family Council, CEG's parent organization.

Bills to Watch
The following are education bills that were tracked by the CEG policy staff this legislative session, passed the General Assembly, and were signed by the governor.

The presence of a bill on this list does not necessarily denote support or opposition by CEG. You can find full versions of each by clicking on the bill number. If you are new to the political process, you can learn more about the details of how a bill becomes law with this handy guide from the Georgia General Assembly. [Great tool for teachers!]

HB 314 Sponsored by: Rep. Tom Dickinson
Would enact "Jessie's Law", which would provide that foster care students are granted excused absences from school to attend court proceedings relating to such students' foster care.
Signed by Governor on 5/11/11 - Effective Date 7/1/11

HB 325 Sponsored by: Rep. Earl Ehrhart
Would revise certain provisions of the Official Code of Georgia relating to education and revenue and taxation, so as to revise provisions relating to student scholarship organizations and revise and change certain provisions regarding the qualified education income tax credit.
Signed by Governor on 5/11/11 - Effective Date 7/1/11

SB 79 Sponsored by: Sen. Buddy Carter
Would provide that members of local boards of education shall serve terms of no less than four years in length. Would create a two-step process for removing school board members whose district is at risk of losing accreditation.
Signed by Governor on 4/20/11 - Effective Date 4/20/11

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

As one of the first schools in New England to pilot the Apple iPad across multiple grade levels, Millis Public Schools in Massachusetts is a technology pioneer. To connect the iPads and other wireless devices to each other, to teachers, and to the Internet, the small, 1,500-student school, with students in pre-K through grade 12, rolled out a new 802.11n wireless network two years ago.

The wireless network and the iPads are part of the school’s Personalized Learning Initiative, which includes a 1-1 learning blueprint. The school defines 1-1 learning as “the tailoring of teaching and learning to the needs of the individual student.” That includes a personal computing device for each participating student—devices that can be tailored to individual student needs.

In February, Millis distributed 110 iPads to its eighth graders as part of a pilot to use at school on the wireless network and at home. The objective, as the Millis Public Schools’ web site explains, is to determine how the mobile, networked devices can help students improve productivity, engagement, and learning. The pilot has already been a success, so much so that in the fall, the plan is to move those students to iPad 2s as they enter the ninth grade, and to distribute the current iPads, which are version 1, to new eighth graders.

According to Grace Magley, director of technology for Millis Public Schools, the school has long been Apple-focused, with a wireless system in place for years that used Apple Airport base stations to connect teachers’ MacBooks, along with laptops on carts for student use. But with the gradual move to 1-1 learning, Magley says, “we knew that what we had in place [for a wireless network] wouldn’t support a device per student.”

The search began for a more robust system; the school considered several vendors, but settled on wireless vendor Xirrus for several reasons. Magley and her staff liked the Xirrus overall management system, but the trump card was the system of Arrays that Xirrus employs. Rather than access points, a Xirrus wireless network receives and transmits signals using devices it calls Arrays, which contain two, four, eight or 16 radios per device. Each radio can be programmed independently for signal strength, the antennas’ directional signal, and to avoid channel conflict. Fewer devices mean fewer headaches around installation, wiring and support, as well as fewer ports in connecting the wireless devices back to the network.

While each array is more costly than an access point, it is also much more powerful. With 13 Arrays in place throughout the school, Magley estimates that she needed just half to a third as many Arrays compared to access points. All eight of the school’s eighth-grade classrooms, for example, are supported by a single array. In one location in the school, an array supports 120 devices. “We would have needed an access point in every classroom to support that saturation,” Magley says.

The Xirrus network supports the school’s iPads, along with four mobile wireless labs, and teachers’ laptops computers, along with a large population of students at Millis who are taking online classes at a collaborative virtual high school.

The current pilot has “been really successful in terms of what students are able to do with the iPad,” Magley says. The devices are being used with Moodle, the school’s learning management system, for example, and by every eighth-grade teacher across every subject, from art to music to TV production.

One example of a useful application that Magley cites is eClicker Host, an app that requires a small fee for use on teacher devices but is free for student devices. Using the wireless network, eClicker turns each student’s iPad into a personal response system, which teachers can then use to pose quick questions to students during class to assess understanding and direct discussions. Students and teachers can see a real-time graphic display summarizing everyone’s response, giving a sense of learning in the classroom as a whole and individually.

At Millis, iPads and a robust wireless network are giving teachers and students more control over learning styles and environments. Says Magley: “This project has really made an impact.”

===
If you are interested in deploying a high performance Wi-Fi solution, please contact Xirrus at: info@xirrus.com

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Why are DeKalb Schools Salary Schedules not published online and accessible to all taxpayers?

Much has been written and discussed about the opacity of DeKalb Schools with respect to salary schedules and employee job functions placement on those schedules.

DeKalb Schools Human Resource Department should be publishing the salary schedules for all job categories. DCSS is the most opaque school system in metro Atlanta regarding employee salaries. DCSS has had a webpage for many years where Human Resources purports to publish salary schedules. Please note that DeKalb taxpayers can ONLY select to see the DCSS Teacher Salary Schedule.

Now look at the other metro area school systems. Note the many salary schedules available to taxpayers online so they can compare their school system's administrative and support salaries with other metro school systems. While an Compensation Audit is necessary, taxpayers should have access to the information that the auditors have. In ALL of the other metro systems in Atlanta, detailed salary schedule information for admin and support personnel is published online for taxpayers. Click on some of the links below to compare the salary information that the other counties and cities in metro Atlanta provide taxpayers versus DeKalb Schools.

Human Resources has an obligation to the taxpayers of DeKalb County to publish salary schedule information for all employees. After all, taxpayers are paying the salaries of every employee in DeKalb County. This needs to be NOW - not later. Human Resources has these salary schedules. It is a simple matter of uploading them to the DCSS website.

If Ms. Tyson wants transparency, this is the place to start since she has stated salaries and benefits make up 90+% of DCSS expenditures.

Monday, May 23, 2011

(Today is May 22, 2011. It is clear that our Board of Education is making no progress in the superintendent search. They did meet Friday in Executive Session but it had been 10 days since they had last met. For whatever reason, they are clearly at a stalemate.)

Do you know that there is a superintendent search on? Do you understand the implications of this search may be far greater and longer lasting than any impact redistricting might have on your child and their education?

I have spoken to several board members and they are hearing virtually nothing from citizens about the stalled superintendent search.Our silence is empowering those board members who refuse to move forward to remain entrenched.They received 1000s of emails about redistricting, they need to receive even more about getting a high qualify, proven leader for our school system.

You can use the link on the right side panel to email the board or here are their email addresses ready to be cut and paste into an email.

Let our board members know what we expect and what this system needs. Let them know that we care about the whole system, not just our tiny little slice. Because if this superintendent search doesn't turn out well, then even our good little pieces might turn bad.

Today, Claudia has posted a truly inspired description of DeKalb county schools. Here's a snippet:

Running the schools with superb opacity, our elected officials and administrators share essential information only under duress. Documents appear and disappear at will, and the system’s financial accounting is routinely withheld or obscured.

At least in the fairytale Hansel and Gretel, the crumbs dropped by the children led somewhere. In the dark labyrinth of the DeKalb County School System, there are no trails at all. It’s impossible to follow the money or the ideas.

Some of us at DeKalb School Watch have been culling through the four boxes of documents and have found that indeed, Ernst & Young found many people who were being overpaid. However, those people were not teachers. In fact, we have yet to find data that shows any investigation into teacher salaries by Ernst & Young. Yes, a few media specialists did show up on the list as being overpaid, however, the bulk of overpaid employees were principals, assistant principals, administrative secretaries (school-based secretaries were consistently underpaid), coordinators, security staff and pretty much everyone at Fernbank Science Center.

Below is a listing of some of the overpaid positions and how much these people were overpaid by name - information available at Georgia Open Records. The plan at the time was not to reduce anyone's salary, but to instead stop the increases and allow the market to catch up. That was never done. Instead, the study was halted, Johnny Brown was fired and all twelve of the people who originally worked on this project are no longer employed by the school system. Although many have left DeKalb, most of the people still employed by the school system on this list, make much more money today than 6 years ago.

===

According to the 2004 Ernst & Young salary audit, the following people were being paid over the maximum for their pay grade (amount over range max in parenthesis) This is a partial list. We are not finished with the boxes. There is much more to come.

Almost all school-based secretaries (hundreds) were below the recommended step by $5,000-$7,000
Over 50 non-school-based secretaries were over the maximum salary by $4,460
Approx 30 non-school-based more secretaries were over the maximum by over $3,000
Over 30 maintenance assistants were below the recommended step from $1,542-$5,010
Over 100 campus security officers were over the maximum by $2,006-$17,100 (Avg: over $8,000)
9 language interpreters were underpaid from $3,207-$5,667
12 interpreters for the deaf were over the maximum by $3,783-$16,563
Over 75 Tech Support Specialists were over the maximum by $1,671-$5,283
10 bookkeepers were underpaid from $1,151-$5,012
Over 100 bus drivers were paid below the minimum from $814-$2,319
Almost all food service managers (over 100) were over the maximum from $5,606-$18,661
Over 50 custodians were below the minimum from $758-$6,759
Several registrars were below the minimum
Over 30 maintenance assistants were below the minimum from $788-$5,013
5 Accounts Payable Clerks were over the maximum from $1,422-$6,890
Approx half of parapros were paid $4,000 more than the other half

===

It's a very good thing that Ms. Tyson has ordered a brand new salary study. These should be done every 5 years. The one discussed above was done in 2005, the first in approximately 15 years. It was not used. It is definitely time to get one done. The new superintendent will need this data.

Friday, May 20, 2011

The following has been reported to us by one of our blog supporters - many thanks.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments related to the DCSS Construction Corruption case (on appeal from DeKalb Superior Court, case number IOCR2861). Specifically, Crawford Lewis' attorneys argued that DeKalb County Superior Court Judge CJ Becker had abused her discretion in ruling that Alston & Bird, the firm representing Lewis in the criminal matter, was disqualified due to a conflict of interest. Parsons Technology Group is the program management company that took over the running of the DCSS construction department after P. Pope was reassigned after the 10/2009 search warrants. An employee of Parsons is now the interim CIT Officer and is essentially the new Pat Pope. This employee, according to the prosecutor's argument at the Court of Appeals, will be a major State's witness against P. Pope and C. Lewis at the criminal trial. The conflict stems from the fact that Parsons Technology Group is a longtime, multi-million dollar client of Alston & Bird. In more specific terms, Lewis' attorneys will inevitably be in a position to cross-examine a high-ranking employee of very large client. This is a built-in basis for an eventual "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim by Lewis once convicted. Such a conflict may be waivable in a civil matter, but not in a criminal matter.

The Court of Appeals hearing was set to start at 10:00. It did not get underway until about 10:40. Tom Bowen, current DCSS Board Of Education Chairman, showed up to the proceeding prior to its start. He made his way to Crawford Lewis and his family. He hugged Lewis and members of Lewis' family. After exchanging hugs and pleasantries, Chairman Bowen then sat behind the Lewis family (on the Appellant/Lewis side of the courtroom) in a blatant show of support for the indicted former superintendent who was fired nearly a year ago.

Why in the WORLD would Tom Bowen show up to this proceeding? And in support of Crawford Lewis? Why isn't he supporting the District Attorney's Office that did the difficult and right thing and pursued the criminal charges against Lewis? Could it be due to the need to protect the outcome of the school system's $100 million lawsuit against Heery/Mitchell Construction? A conviction on the indictments of Lewis and Pat Pope would certainly harm the school system's civil case – a case that they have already spent over $15 million on King & Spalding and other legal entities.

Tom, are you with DCSS OR are you with the former superintendent who was indicted for running a criminal enterprise? Do you support DCSS OR do you support indicted Lewis? You can't have it both ways.

Were you there on your own ...OR on behalf the entire Board?

Either way – it was irresponsible of you and certainly sends a disappointing message to DeKalb County residents about you, the board you represent and your intentions.

A preliminary report released Monday showed property values dropped 10.5 percent in the county, more than double what was projected for the budget. That created a $25 million hole for commissioners -- who have sliced $33.6 million to create a $529 million budget.

A majority of commissioners said that meant another round of cuts, and, for the first time, consideration of a tax hike.

“It’s going to have to be a mix,” said Commissioner Lee May, who heads the budget committee. “The fact remains, we have a real revenue problem.”

And our school board is certainly considering the same thing - making for the possibility of a double tax hike. Except that homeowners will feel the school tax hike more, since school taxes account for approximately 70% of their annual property tax bills.

The school board very nearly passed a budget at their last meeting that spent all of the projected income along with a good portion of our reserves. Luckily, the budget was pulled in order to have more discussion and conduct some research. Now that we know the tax collections are far less than even the dismal projection, what will our board propose to fill the gap? Where else can spending be cut?

Saturday, May 14, 2011

We have once again veered off topic on another post onto the topic of the points allocations and associated programs for students labeled as gifted. The gifted label provides what we call FTE (full time equivalent) points of 1.667. As a comparison, a typical high school student with regular services counts for 1.0 FTE points, a kindergartner counts as 1.6585 points and special education students can range from 1.3 to 2.5 or more. Principals are given point totals for the students in their buildings and use them to hire the necessary staff. In doing so, they have to follow the legal requirements for services for special education and gifted students. We often hear that some principals may be pooling these extra points to fund school wide benefits like art, music and PE, with the stated reasoning that "the special ed and gifted students also enjoy these extras." We also often wonder exactly how the magnet programs for high achievers are funded, and if they are causing harm to students who are identified as gifted, but do not win a seat at the magnet table in the lottery and must take the services offered at their assigned neighborhood school.

For more information on the gifted points allocations, read our recent post on the subject:

===
For more in-depth but easy to understand information on FTE, click here to download a great Powerpoint called FTE for Dummies written by Paige Cooley of the Savannah-Chatham County Public School System.

Friday, May 13, 2011

"A high level of events have occurred regarding the 2003 audit. Documents were provided on March 14. Goal is always to remain transparent and open. Although I had been led to believe that the staff had reviewed all of the documents collected related to the E&Y study in advance of that meeting, in fact, it was found that staff had only reviewed roughly 60% of the documents in our possession before I made the presentation. After learning that there were documents in our possession that were related to the study that had not been reviewed, and therefore I asked general counsel Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan to review all of the documents related to the study. In addition, upon my request, I also asked Sutherland to contact Ernst & Young direct, as representatives of the board of education and ask them to provide copies of documents related to the engagement that would have been amongst the documents provided to the school system during the course of the engagement. Ernestine (sic) and Young has provided the school system with a limited number of responsive documents in its possession. It is true that none of the 12 members from the study’s guidance team back in 2003-2005 are still employed by the district. Therefore, without any first-hand witnesses, what we know about the study remains limited to what we can determine from the documents, the emails and the other correspondence we have assembled. But we do now have a fuller picture of what transpired. The full set of documents shows the following series of events:

The district advertised an RFP for a compensation and classification study in the summer of 2003 and on September 8th, 2003, the board selected Ernst & Young to perform a study at a cost of $341,000. The initial scope of work for the project called for Ernst & Young to review the district’s entire employee compensation and classification system to develop a more streamlined and efficient classification system and to compare the district’s compensation levels to those of surrounding districts. E&Y commenced the work on the study and you have been provided with various reports the board received showing E&Y’s progress. We have identified additional status reports which are included in the revised chronology. It appears that in April, 2004, E&Y provided a preliminary estimate of cost of implementing E&Y’s recommendation. This preliminary estimate indicates that the district may have been overpaying more than 2,000 positions by more than $14 million and underpaying other positions. However, a cursory review indicates that E&Y’s assumptions were not compliant to the salary administration guidelines as required by the Georgia Department of Education for some positions, ie; teachers and media specialists.

DCSS now has possession of back up documentation for the estimate, as well as various summaries and breakdowns of the estimate. The information is being provided to the press. It is worth noting that Jim Landry, who was heading up the project for E&Y is quoting (sic) as describing the estimate as incorrect and very misleading because it was too early and preliminary to give an accurate report. In addition, the DCSS staff (unintelligible) stated that the estimate was a scattershot, and that it was not uncommon for the estimates to be revised more than a dozen times during the course of study such as the one undertaken by E&Y. This preliminary estimate appears to have been the source of most of the speculation in the press that E&Y made a final report showing the difference between the district’s actual compensation and what E&Y recommended that compensation should be. The preliminary report estimated that the district was paying some of its staff in excess of E&Y’s proposed salary ranges, but it also estimated that the district was paying others below the proposed ranges. Albeit not to the same extent. E&Y made several refinements to this cost estimate, but as I’ll discuss, it appears that no final cost and analysis was ever completed.

By spring of 2005, E&Y had largely completed its proposed redesign of the district’s classification system and was apparently still working on the other phase of the project. In other words, E&Y was still trying to determine how the district’s compensation levels compared to those in surrounding districts. But rather than completing that second phase of the project, it appears that the district and E&Y negotiated a reduced scope of work. Although several emails around this time period referred to there being a reduced scope of work, we do not have any documents showing exactly what changes were made. What we do know is that E&Y proceeded to finalize its proposed design of the employee classification system and it provided its final deliverables in August or September of 2005. Those deliverables included a documentation manual describing the methodology and the results of the study. As I reported in March, March 14, 2011, the documentation manual does not contain an analysis comparing the district’s compensation to the compensation of surrounding districts. And as far as we can determine, no such analysis was ever completed. We infer, that the reduced scope of work eliminated this phase of the study from E&Y’s project requirements. Therefore it appears that E&Y never created a final version of the preliminary estimate that has been the focus of the media’s investigation.

In September, 2005, the board was presented with and approved the classification system recommended by E&Y. By this time, district staff had confirmed that E&Y had completed all of this work under the reduced scope of work and on January 12, 2006, the district authorized payment of E&Y’s final invoice. From the review of the information, again the compensation analysis was never completed.

Now today, as a part of the transitional plan, the next steps are to complete the following over the next 6-9 months with a direct focus on central office positions and administration salaries:

By May 30, 2011, we will develop a request for proposal to conduct a compensation study partnering either with a college or university or a company that specializes in organizational structure/compensation study.

By June, 2011, I will transition this plan to the new superintendent and I will include the documents that were found under the E&Y study for full disclosure and receipt to the new superintendent.

By the end of June we will ask the legal team to review the RFP.

By July of 2011, a public advertisement of the RFP will occur.

By August of 2011, the RFP will be acknowledged with vendors that will reply to that RFP.

By September of 2011, the RVP evaluation and vendor selection will occur.

And by October, board approval and award to such vendor.

All of this is subject to change dependent on the new superintendent, but I did want to give the board the complete commitment to follow through on the charge of seeing that the study is begun."

===
It was revealed in the Q&A that there will be four file boxes on the study in the board office for the board to review.

"A high level of events have occurred regarding the 2003 audit. Documents were provided on March 14. Goal is always to remain transparent and open. Although I had been led to believe that the staff had reviewed all of the documents collected related to the E&Y study in advance of that meeting, in fact, it was found that staff had only reviewed roughly 60% of the documents in our possession before I made the presentation. After learning that there were documents in our possession that were related to the study that had not been reviewed, and therefore I asked general counsel Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan to review all of the documents related to the study. In addition, upon my request, I also asked Sutherland to contact Ernst & Young direct, as representatives of the board of education and ask them to provide copies of documents related to the engagement that would have been amongst the documents provided to the school system during the course of the engagement. Ernestine (sic) and Young has provided the school system with a limited number of responsive documents in it’s possession. It is true that none of the 12 members from the study’s guidance team back in 2003-2005 are still employed by the district. Therefore, without any first-hand witnesses, what we know about the study remains limited to what we can determine from the documents, the emails and the other correspondence we have assembled. But we do now have a fuller picture of what transpired. The full set of documents shows the following series of events:

The district advertised an RFP for a compensation and classification study in the summer of 2003 and on September 8th, 2003, the board selected Ernst & Young to perform a study at a cost of $341,000. The initial scope of work for the project called for Ernst & Young to review the district’s entire employee compensation and classification system to develop a more streamlined and efficient classification system and to compare the district’s compensation levels to those of surrounding districts. E&Y commenced the work on the study and you have been provided with various reports the board received showing E&Y’s progress. We have identified additional status reports which are included in the revised chronology. It appears that in April, 2004, E&Y provided a preliminary estimate of cost of implementing E&Y’s recommendation. This preliminary estimate indicates that the district may have been overpaying more than 2,000 positions by more than $14 million and underpaying other positions. However, a cursory review indicates that E&Y’s assumptions were not compliant to the salary administration guidelines as required by the Georgia Department of Education for some positions, ie; teachers and media specialists.

DCSS now has possession of back up documentation for the estimate, as well as various summaries and breakdowns of the estimate. The information is being provided to the press. It is worth noting that Jim Landry, who was heading up the project for E&Y is quoting (sic) as describing the estimate as incorrect and very misleading because it was too early and preliminary to give an accurate report. In addition, the DCSS staff (unintelligible) stated that the estimate was a scattershot, and that it was not uncommon for the estimates to be revised more than a dozen times during the course of study such as the one undertaken by E&Y. This preliminary estimate appears to have been the source of most of the speculation in the press that E&Y made a final report showing the difference between the district’s actual compensation and what E&Y recommended that compensation should be. The preliminary report estimated that the district was paying some of it’s staff in excess of E&Y’s proposed salary ranges, but it also estimated that the district was paying others below the proposed ranges. Albeit not to the same extent. E&Y made several refinements to this cost estimate, but as I’ll discuss, it appears that no final cost and analysis was ever completed.

By spring of 2005, E&Y had largely completed it’s proposed redesign of the district’s classification system and was apparently still working on the other phase of the project. In other words, E&Y was still trying to determine how the district’s compensation levels compared to those in surrounding districts. But rather than completing that second phase of the project, it appears that the district and E&Y negotiated a reduced scope of work. Although several emails around this time period referred to there being a reduced scope of work, we do not have any documents showing exactly what changes were made. What we do know is that E&Y proceeded to finalize it’s proposed design of the employee classification system and it provided it’s final deliverables in August or September of 2005. Those deliverables included a documentation manual describing the methodology and the results of the study. As I reported in March, March 14, 2011, the documentation manual does not contain an analysis comparing the district’s compensation to the compensation of surrounding districts. And as far as we can determine, no such analysis was ever completed. We infer, that the reduced scope of work eliminated this phase of the study from E&Y’s project requirements. Therefore it appears that E&Y never created a final version of the preliminary estimate that has been the focus of the media’s investigation.

In September, 2005, the board was presented with and approved the classification system recommended by E&Y. By this time, district staff had confirmed that E&Y had completed all of this work under the reduced scope of work and on January 12, 2006, the district authorized payment of E&Y’s final invoice. From the review of the information, again the compensation analysis was never completed.

Now today, as a part of the transitional plan, the next steps are to complete the following over the next 6-9 months with a direct focus on central office positions and administration salaries:

By May 30, 2011, we will develop a request for proposal to conduct a compensation study partnering either with a college or university or a company that specializes in organizational structure/compensation study.

By June, 2011, I will transition this plan to the new superintendent and I will include the documents that were found under the E&Y study for full disclosure and receipt to the new superintendent.

By the end of June we will ask the legal team to review the RFP.

By July of 2011, a public advertisement of the RFP will occur.

By August of 2011, the RFP will be acknowledged with vendors that will reply to that RFP.

By September of 2011, the RVP evaluation and vendor selection will occur.

And by October, board approval and award to such vendor.

All of this is subject to change dependent on the new superintendent, but I did want to give the board the complete commitment to follow through on the charge of seeing that the study is begun."

===

It was revealed in the Q&A that there will be four file boxes on the study in the board office for the board to review.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Below are some of my notes from Monday's business meeting. Business meetings are almost always a repeat of the previous week's work session, however, this business meeting was chock full of very enlightening new information. My notes are lengthy and will appear in two posts - one today and one tomorrow.

Quenterious Tolen (graduating student member of the board) – DCSS – a haven of comfort, hope and joy. Next Friday I will graduate with honors from Columbia HS – what I believe is the best education I could be offered. I have been esteemed at the honor of being on the DeKalb County board of education. Now I leave to you my final words of wisdom. I remind this county of the charge that it has. You have charges to keep buildings running, however today I remind you of your charge to educate. To educate means to empower students. Go back to what makes leading a school system worthwhile. That landmark is love. Where is that love? In power, popularity, prestige? I call upon all in DeKalb county to lay aside our differences and focus on the students. Never offer a complaint without offering a solution. We need a humble teacher to stand and lead us into the promised land of brotherhood.

A – Interviewed 99 candidates – selecting up to 75 Teach for Am candidates – select 2 teaching fellow – train to be APs – Will train at Columbia University
B – July 2010 – renamed to GPS – all will be addressed – Common Assessments being developed – implemented in 2014-15 -- Phase 1 – administrators, Phase 2 – teacher leaders, Phase 3 all teachers
C – Data system (Instruction Improvement System). To be seamless. All teachers have access and will use the data. Used p-20. State will use the data as well.
D – Turnaround schools – 4 intervention models: Turnaround, Charter EMO, School Closure & Transformation – We’ve selected the Transformation model. Have identified schools. Towers application looks good so far. Must ensure extreme instructional makeover – Clarkston & McNair implementing improvements now. STEM – all ES and MS make Science the 2nd AYP indicator in lieu of attendance beginning in 2013.

[NOTE; The Turnaround Model requires replacing the principal and removing at least 50% of staff]

Dr. Hooker – collaboration with the state

Board and super – it’s a pleasure to stand before you. You have shown that it’s not only head, it’s heart driving these initiatives. I encourage you all to listen to what Mr. Tolen mentioned. It’s about heart – what we need for turnaround.

20 schools in GA that we’re working with. DCSS selected Transformation. We’re in the right zone – headed for great things. I look forward to more students in the future like Mr. Tolen.

DeKalb county - $34 million. You bought into the following:

Summer leadership academy – required to attend. Rollout common core and evaluation standards. Keys – will be streamlined. Everyone needs standards-based instruction and assessment. Collaboratively with state DOE. Re-emphasizing the roles of school administrators – remove 'administratia' so that principals can get into the classroom. We also expect the students to do their part and step up their game in the next 2-3 years in this strategy. Seek to entice Teach for America teachers so that they decide to teach as a career. This district has asked me to look at candidates for the turnaround model. I expect great gains in these schools because I saw what the teachers want for the schools and I’ve seen the leadership ask for guidance. Yes, there will be struggles, but I don’t find a struggle working with DeKalb schools as you have asked me in on the front end.

Dr Walker – excited about this – I wish the governor would have appointed someone from DeKalb on this RTTT committee. He has someone from everywhere but DeKalb, and we got the money - but we don’t need it cause we have Dr Hooker.

[NOTE: DeKalb does have representation on all committees related to RTTT. I will post the input I received from the DOE communications officer in the comments.]

Mosely – Redistricting: closing 8 schools nearly complete. HR has developed procedures for reassignment. No staff member will lose a job. Scheduled and conducted meetings in each school for staff. Held meetings with principals to discuss plans for transition. Scheduled open houses for students and parents. Mailed 7000 letters over spring break. Installed a redistricting phone line for parents to ask questions. Plans to merge PTAs and transportation has reviewed bus routes. Athletics has a plan for relocating equipment. Collaborated with state for eligibility. Facilities has a decommission plan for each school. To Edler - Fernbank’s SST program (a countywide program with 200 slots) from Avondale MS will be a part of STT at new assigned school. Avondale’s ROTC program will move to Arabia HS. MIS moves all technology. Capital needs will address design needs of receiving schools. Voting precincts associated with the closed schools will also be reassigned. PreK lottery recipients at Sky Haven will attend PreK at Meadowview or McNair D&L. Funding will go to Rainbow and Allgood. Cunningham – community is confused about PreK assignments. Also asked about custodians, cafeteria workers and bus drivers – still have the same job reassignment process as teachers, etc. filling vacancies. To Jester – Dunwoody situation – changing the 4-5 academy to k-5. Dunwoody is more complicated due to grade level changes within the schools. Need to make sure we have the right teachers & administrators. Cunningham – what about block schedule? If they change how does that effect? Mosely – changing over the summer is no problem. Again, parents are confused on the subject. Edler – have we anticipated an increase in NCLB transfers due to redistricting and have we given thought to the annex situation which I find problematic. Beasley – we’ve decided already to move current annexes to main buildings and it’s not our intention to offer annexes in the future. Tucker MS at Stone Mt MS will exist next year, but will be phased out. Womack – when will we migrate from the block and go to the 7 period. Tyson – BOE put that on my plate when I took over and it’s been in the queue, but I haven’t had time to get to it.

Many of you know that I’ve been through a number of changes with regard to the Math curriculum in Georgia. For a bit of history: (1) my soon-to-be-college-sophomore was part of the program by Dr. Brown insisting upon mandatory algebra for all 8th graders. This was required without any regard to basic “readiness” components such as whether a child knew his or her multiplication or division ‘facts’ cold. The explanation for the change was that all children who had calculus in high school succeeded in college. My personal experience with calculus in high school, which I came close to failing and have never used as an attorney, is that Dr. Brown had his Venn diagram backwards: all those who succeed with calculus in high school will do well in college, but there are others who will do well in college who do not take calculus in high school. The end result: a 70% fail rate in algebra 1 in 8th grade. My son was the 2nd or 3rd year of mandatory algebra 1 (he did fine, he took AB calculus as a senior and is currently enrolled in an engineering curriculum in NY). (2) My middle son was the first year of the shift to Integrated GPS math and he was part of the first group of students to be enrolled in “Accelerated Math 1" as an 8th grader, entering the curriculum mid-year in 7th grade. I was very involved in the roll-out of this curriculum and in its implementation. I have been outspoken against it, particularly with regard to the lack of teacher training and the lack of a “model” system effectively using this curriculum elsewhere. When directly asked “who is using this math” and “with what result,” the response was hemming and hawing and reference to Europe and a need to compete abroad. No one domestically was utilizing the curriculum in toto such that my child and his friends were being used as guinea pigs. The experiment has failed (some of his friends, now sophomores, are looking at Calculus next year and are doing very well– they are very bright and able to absorb the math, and others of his friends are really struggling in Math 2 and are looking at Math 3 next year). The State is now moving away from this curriculum. (3) My youngest son has been enrolled in Accelerated Math 1 as an 8th grader this year. In it’s 3rd year, they are still not working from a text book. Fortunately for my household, my sons are good at math and they have each other for help.

The County has released its pending course offerings for the rising 9th graders and for the Accelerated rising 8th graders. I have been barraging various folks at the County, including Dr. Beasley, Ms. Tyson and others along with Dr. Reichrath at the State, with my thoughts and opinions gleaned from these past 7 years of changes in the math curriculum. A friend and I had the opportunity to attend a meeting this past week with some math curriculum folks from the County, including Ms. Stacy Stepney, the Director for High School Teaching and Learning and with Ms. Wanda Audrict, the K-12 Math Coordinator. I was pleased with how supportive of the children they were and how knowledgeable they were about the past and upcoming changes to the math curriculum and the interface they require from the State. They also seemed to support “leveling” math within the high school. It is not obvious from the materials that have been presented to the parents that the upcoming math options will be offered in gifted and accelerated modules (for comparison my eldest had Gifted Geometry, Gifted Algebra 2, Gifted Analysis and then AP AB Calculus). They indicated that they were encouraging the schools to make such courses available if the student bodies would support it. Ms. Stepney is willing to speak with folks with questions – so contact her.

It seems that the current upcoming changes to the math curriculum will only impact the current 7th graders (rising 8th) and older (this is why none of the other grade levels have been addressed at the meetings). This is because the horizon includes Governor Deal’s adoption of the Common Core Standards (National Standards) http://www.corestandards.org/ It seems that no one is quite sure what this will mean. How does this impact the CRCT? What about implementing it now rather than going to some in-between step for math? How will it be rolled out? Why are we not using a test like the NAEP (the “National Assessment of Educational Progress” test – my middle son took this test at Henderson two years ago but never received the scores. Also not all of Henderson nor all 8th graders took the NAEP that year, only a selected group of 8th grade impact kids at Henderson took the NAEP that year... it is very odd actually, but I digress). Can we take the Iowa instead of the CRCT? Is there a budget for teacher training? New books? There are no answers. Only questions and more changes on the horizon.

In evaluating what to do about the “new” math options if you have a child impacted (e.g. 7-10th grade). You need to look at a very confusing chart. The County’s website has the math powerpoint uploaded. The women explained that the “programs” (DCSS has so many) have different tracks so a student exiting Chamblee Middle in Accelerated Math 1 isn’t necessarily in the “same boat” as a student exiting Henderson Middle in Accelerated Math 1 (for some reason, Chamblee High still has a math track that can proceed even faster than the Accelerated track at Lakeside that will get a student to Calculus in 11th grade). Also, DCSS is experimenting with “on line” learning whereby joint enrollment may be available for the upper level, very advanced (beyond Calculus) students with the local colleges for classes not offered on-site. This is very exciting and I commend the county for this!

So here are my “take aways” from the meeting. If you have an Accelerated Math 1 child who should stay “on track” and is doing “well” “as is” then don’t return any forms (or get them back - quickly!) and proceed. Your child should automatically be enrolled (by teacher recommendation) in Accelerated GPS Geometry/Advanced Algebra (this is half a year to finish up what is left in Geometry and half a year of the old Algebra 2 – give or take). If you want to “slow it down” because you child hates math, isn’t doing too well, or just isn’t interested in 11th grade Calculus, you sign up for GPS Geometry – not GPS Algebra – if your child has already taken Accelerated Math 1 and has sat for the EOCT (given on Thursday, May 5th) and earned a Carnegie unit and passed the class, your child has completed Algebra 1. To shift from Accelerated Math 1 to GPS Geometry, the form should be completed and returned.

If you have a GPS Math 8 child who is doing well and wants to go to a college like UGA or Ga Tech and is good at math and is not currently struggling (e.g. has the teachers’ “go ahead”), then consider enrolling your child in Accelerated GPS Algebra/Geometry. This will be a half year finishing what is left of Algebra 1 and starting the first half of Geometry (give or take). Sophomore year, you will pick up in the previous paragraph.... There is a way to accelerate even further and get to Calculus as a Junior by “doubling up” – probably sophomore year – if your child is very strong at math and very interested in math. If this is the case, please chat with your counselors and Ms. Stepney about this alternative and plan your courses. If you want to “take it slowly” because your child hates math or is really bad at it, enroll in GPS Algebra or Math 1 depending on whether you want the “discrete” approach (if you are headed to Lakeside, my understanding is that you may not have the option and will need to be in the “discrete” column). I’m not sure which option will require the form to be returned.

My personal “spin” on things is that the high schools are not going to be able to offer every class on the chart and to be able to offer them at every “level” (e.g. gifted and accelerated-colloquially “high achiever”). There are “STARS” (under the new funding formulas) to figure out and actual classrooms to fill. If there are only 8 kids signed up for Math 1 and 20 kids signed up for GPS Algebra, the Math 1s will land in GPS Algebra. The gifteds may be merged with the accelerateds in order for the schools to fill in their “matrixes” of classes so that they can maximize the number of math teachers they have with the courses they are offering. To that end, it may make sense for parents to coordinate with one another so that the kids are presented to the high schools as larger “groups” rather than “singles” for the offerings, which from the chart could be all over the place and a scheduling nightmare for the Assistant Principal doing the scheduling (obviously I’ve never done scheduling myself so maybe it will be easy and I just don’t know it).

I hope this is helpful to you. If you have questions, I really do encourage you to contact Ms. Stepney – she was really delightful and very helpful. The counselors from the different high schools seem to have different information. Please also check with your student’s current math teacher if you have any lingering questions about ability. Understand that the math is changing, training and text book budgets are tight and grades are going onto final transcripts for high school so when you are choosing courses you need to do what’s best for your child. Also, think ahead. Colleges are interested in your child challenging him or herself at the highest end of his or her ability and also doing well in the class (it is sometimes a tight line to walk). Also, the classes your child takes freshman year set the stage for the classes he or she will take the following year and so forth. Certain colleges may be “out of reach” if your child doesn’t reach a “certain level” of classes by junior and senior year so you need to choose wisely and maybe even research colleges now. For example, it may be that UGA and Ga Tech want to see that your child has taken AP classes and Calculus by the time they graduate. In order to take those classes, there are other classes that need to be taken first, so the child needs to set forth on a certain path to get there. It may be that there are other things that come into play. Just enter into your child’s freshman schedule with open eyes regarding ability and where it will lead the following few years with college and after (work, etc) looming ahead so that you are not caught off guard at a time when you may be at a critical juncture and may not be able to do something about it. Also, for kids who are interested in “STEM” careers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), there are some really interesting summer programs and scholarships – for college and for the summer – some are there for girls and others for minorities. Many are “need” based. Do some research on line and see what is out there and what the “prerequisites” are with enough “lead” time to plan ahead. Your teen may still need some guidance from you even if they appear to be completely removed from you.

Good luck.

Shayna

=====Shayna Steinfeld has served as our resource for math information for quite some time. We very much appreciate her willingness to continue to meet with those 'in the know' and to advocate for excellent math in DeKalb.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The 2011 session of the General Assembly is finished and in the books. Shortly before adjournment, we passed Senate Bill 79 (click for information), a bill that among other things will reduce the size of the DeKalb County Board of Education from nine to seven members. Governor Deal signed SB 79 into law a couple of weeks ago.

The provision of SB 79 that shrinks the DeKalb school board was taken from House Bill 63 (click for information), legislation that I authored earlier this year. It downsizes the school board by eliminating the two “super districts” that each cover half the county, leaving seven single-member districts of equal population.

In addition to yours truly, Senators Fran Millar (R-Dunwoody) and Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur) and Representatives Tom Taylor (R-Dunwoody) and Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur) were instrumental in seeing to the passage of this important legislation. Despite the fact that just about every other DeKalb County legislator refused to see past the purely political arguments that were made against SB 79, this bipartisan group of five legislators worked together to take a major step forward for the DeKalb County School System.

In 2001, the DeKalb County Board of Education saw its membership increase from seven to nine seats. The current size of the school board is a major impediment to its operating at a high standard. This is why the passage of SB 79 was crucial.

Experts agree that smaller school boards provide higher quality governance than larger boards. The Commission for School Board Excellence, a group of leaders that wrote Georgia’s school board ethics law, has recommended that boards consist of no more than seven members. Georgia law already provides that school boards may have no more than seven members, but unfortunately school systems like DeKalb were grandfathered into this 2010 enactment.

DeKalb County, Clayton County, and the Atlanta Public Schools are the only districts in Metro Atlanta that do not meet this standard. Of the latter two districts, Clayton lost its accreditation in 2008 over alleged corruption among board members, and APS has been placed on probation by the accrediting agency known as Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). SACS is in the process of reviewing school board governance in DeKalb County as well.

Mark Elgart, the president and CEO of SACS, recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that “all of the problems in these systems are about board governance, power struggles, and unethical behavior – not teachers or lack of funding.”

Reducing the size of our school board can help eliminate these problems. “As you increase the number of actors that are on the board, you sometimes end up with an inability to act in conformance with anybody’s set of standards,” former State School Superintendent Brad Bryant, who hails from DeKalb County, told the AJC.

The Georgia School Boards Association (GSBA) regularly selects Georgia’s best school boards as “Distinguished Boards of Education” after a review of their performance and organizational structure. More than 90 percent of the boards chosen for 2008 through 2010 have only five members, according to GSBA’s website.

The Gwinnett County School System has the largest student enrollment in Georgia. It also has an award-winning board of education with only five members – two less than SB 79 will require for DeKalb County and four less than comprise DeKalb’s current board.

Of the four largest school districts in the state (Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett), DeKalb is the only one with a board of more than seven members.

My hope was that this necessary change could be made through local legislation, approved by a majority of the 19 representatives and 7 senators from DeKalb County working together to do what is right for our school system and our children.

In this regard, Representative Mary Margaret Oliver had proposed House Bill 22 (click for information), local legislation that could have addressed this issue from a local perspective. I supported HB 22 throughout this year’s legislative session and hoped for its passage, but watched with dismay as certain school board members and their friends in the legislature worked to ensure its defeat.

Within the past two years, our school system has seen the indictment of its superintendent and has spent millions of tax dollars in attorney’s fees for lawsuits against construction contractors.

Reducing the DeKalb school board to seven members is a necessary first step toward a better-run school system. I am pleased that we were able to overcome purely political obstacles in order to make it happen.

Search this blog

New Ideas, Discussions and Information Related to DeKalb County, Georgia Schools

Hosted by:

WELCOME!

Welcome to DeKalb County School Watch, where a dedicated group of parents and community members are working to keep information flowing from DCSS administration to the community regarding our schools.

To submit an article for posting, please email it to reparteeforfun@gmail.com - and Cerebration will post it for you. Regular contributors will be given front page privileges to publish directly to the blog.

Comments are welcomed and appreciated on every post. We request that you show mutual respect and serve to advance the conversation by adding only thoughtful comments on the topic at hand.

Aerials of our high schools

Georgia PTA

Click to join the advocacy email list

Click to link to CNN's awesome free news service for students

Online Checkbook Register

Checkbook register online refers to the movement to empower people to scrutinize and oversee government by asking that government agencies post their checkbook registers online in an easily accessible, searchable format.

DCSW Bloggers Vision

Cyber-Learning

More Questions Than Answers - How Did Our Board Not See Anything?

Click to read this very long conversation as we wonder how Lewis and Pope were able to pull the wool over the eyes of our entire board. (A good case for replacing incumbents.)

The latest on the Lewis/Pope Trials

The Civil Case with Heery/Mitchell

Click for background on this complicated civil case on SPLOST construction projects

North vs Central vs South - what's the deal?

Are things really so different in north vs south DeKalb?

DCSS - Could it be as bloated as Mr. Potato Head?

One of our most popular postings - a report on the bloat in spending at the top in DCSS.

Bullying – An Information Clearinghouse

Click the photo for a link to our research on bullying.

Never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. -Martin Luther King, Jr.